WordWolf

I mentioned that once.

I said to graduate from even a lukewarm college,

you'd need to fill your degree requirements,

including the major. a major in theology would

require proper citation and crediting WHILE

teaching the proper way to research and get the

information FROM said sources.

This becomes reinforced going for your Masters,

all the time.

But, as Rafael pointed out...

Mike's "conscience is so seared on this topic

that it's not worth arguing any further."

Well, there's fiction and non-fiction.

If anyone would have pushed a "you can't read"

doctrine on me, I would have just ignored it.

(I ignored the suggestion of "put everything

aside for 3 months", for example.)

Non-fiction wise, there's some good stuff out

there. I recommend "Lies My Teacher Told Me",

by Carl Loewen. It addresses issues of bias

and untold stories in our history books, and

WHY they're there, and WHY they're ingrained in

the system that produces textbooks.

Being a voracious reader for fun, there's a lot

of fiction I read.

I recommend Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time"

series. I recommend Modesitt's "Recluce"

series.

I do read the "Left Behind" series, and the

"Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter" series. I don't

necessarily recommend either one, but I enjoy

them both. I'm not proud-I read what

entertains me. Both include certain elements

I really like, which overcome their individual

deficiencies. I also really like what they've

been doing lately in the "Batman" comic book

series. Don't laugh-it's been getting a lot more

attention lately, and rightly so.

That's funny, Lindy...

We had been posting at the same time,

and I had concluded that you had made the same

point at the same time, more concisely.

Yes, I thought the word "circumlocuitous" was

the best word for the job, since its use carries

the feel I was looking for, also.

(20 syllables when 4 are called for.)

Back to that sentence again.....

If pfal is The Word of God-and Mike says it is-

then it MUST follow the rules set out in pfal

for understanding God's Word.

According to pfal, this means it will work with

a "mathematical exactness and a scientific

precision". This also means that "at least

85-90%" of the weitten content can be

understood in a straightforward manner as what

is written as is-the most direct meaning.

So, when examining an exclusion, we must look

at what it DOES say as well as what it does

NOT say.

If, for example, it says that

"not all that Wierwill writes will necessarily

be God-breathed", we must look at that

statement directly, and using a mathematical

exactness and scientific precision.

What is excluded in this statement, and what is

NOT excluded in this statement?

What is excluded is the "ALL" category.

"All" is not an option.

Has "SOME" been excluded? No.

Has "NONE" been excluded? No.

We might perhaps suppose one or the other is

excluded-if we were NOT using a mathematical

exactness OR a scientific precision.

If one were proceeding with a "logic proof" of

same in mathematics, it would begin with the

single "given" statement:

"Not all Wierwille writes will necessarily be

God-breathed."

The excluded outcomes number ONE:

"All Wierwille writes will necessarily be

God-breathed" is automatically excluded, since

a statement and its converse cannot both be

true. ("A and not-A" is always false.)

The possible outcomes are two.

1) "Some of what Wierwille writes will

necessarily be God-breathed."

2) "None of what Wierwille writes will

necessarily be God-breathed."

Either possible outcome is equally likely,

under the rules of mathematical logic.

Unless one wants to abandon the approach

stated in pfal-abandoning "mathematical

exactness and scientific precision", one cannot

select one outcome over the other, from a

plain reading of that statement.

----------------------------------------------

BTW, if "at least 85-90%" of pfal is meant to

be read directly, then statements meant to

convey information will be direct and

straightforward at least 85-90% of the time.

(Simple implication-more mathematical logic.)

If pfal was MEANT to say

"some of what Wierwille writes will be

God-breathed", what would be the profit in

couching it in a circumlocuitous statement?

It's like tossing into a press conference the

question

"do you admit confirming not denying you said

that?"

(Yes. No. I mean- what??)

-----------------------------------------------

BTW, quoting directly from Mike's citation of

vpw, we have the following:

"Let's see this from John 5:39.

'Search the scriptures...'

It does not say

search Shakespeare

or Kant

or Plato

or Aristotle

or VP Wierwille's writings

or the writings of a denomination.

No, it says 'search the scriptures...'

because all Scripture is God-breathed."

(This is immediately followed by the sentence

we've run into the ground, already quoted in

part.)

Who out there can tell me what, in this quote

is equated with Scripture,

and what's contrasted with Scripture?

Right!

NOTHING is equated with Scripture!

Everything else mentioned is contrasted with it.

"Shakespeare, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, VP

Wierwille's writings, the writings of a

denomination" are all set directly in contrast

to Scripture.

(Go ahead and read the statement again.

Is that or is that NOT the plain meaning of

the text?)

This is then followed by the "unclear" quote.

Since there seems to be much discussion of it,

with much difference of opinion what its most

direct meaning is, it is, by definition,

"unclear".

According to pfal,

UNCLEAR VERSES MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IN LIGHT OF

THE CLEAR VERSES.

Further, since this one seems like it may not

explain itself fully "in the verse", we must

proceed to the SECOND rule of understanding

God's Word: All Scripture explains itself

IN THE CONTEXT.

The context is the clear sentences preceding it,

which include VP Wierwille's writings in the

category of "not-Scripture".

So, based on either or both rules, the "unclear

verse" must be understood in light of the

preceeding sentence.

If pfal is truly God's Word, we MUST use its own

rules to understand it. Using those rules, we

see here that its internal testimony of itself-

just from what MIKE quoted-is that it is

not "Scripture".

Go back and repeat the steps if you don't see

it.

----------------------------------------------

Of course, Mike disagrees that's what it means.

Somehow, I didn't apply the rules of pfal

properly to the pfal quotes. Well, I just did

it under everyone's noses, so all the readers

can form their OWN opinion on the subject.

Mike said

(7/13/03 5:31pm)

"The 9/11 and SARS "fear" you pointed out I see

as worry and concern. For SOME people, these

worries and concerns can grow to fear, but it

takes time and repetition, just like full-blown

believing."

===============================================

Let's take this chronologically. I mentioned

the 50's, and FEARS of "the bomb. There were

water rations in the 50's, in preparation for

a possible a-bomb. Everybody knew where their

local "fallout shelters" were-"there were signs

all over the place". I bet you remember

growing up with those signs, still up many years

later. I did. They were up into the 70's and

80's. People-LOTS of people-build PERSONAL

fall-out shelters, for a LOT of money. The

doctrine of "mutually-assured destruction"

("MAD") started back then-people thought that

it would be the end of the world, since the

planet could be bombed into oblivion in a few

hours.

You said "it takes time and repetition".

Well, a 10-year period isn't "time"?

=============================================

The Y2K crisis was recent. Didn't people make

preparaions in your area? In mine, in the last

week of December 1999, you could NOT find a

flashlight or a battery ANYWHERE. Ditto bottled

water. Everybody HERE knows twi went batty

for that time-period also. People were told to

pull their money out of banks. I know people who

made sure they were in the countryside,

expecting rioting. They spent lots of money and

MONTHS preparing. (I went out and had a good

time.)

Ask people who work in the airline industry

about SARS FEAR. You call it worry and concern.

Their industry lost millions of dollars due to

FEAR. These were all FEAR exhibited over

extended periods, by many, many people. IF

fear was a LAW, then there would have been

mass suffering due to mass results of each

FEAR incident.

============================================

Rafael already addressed the "soft blame"HMMADD.

(Job was BLAMELESS, not free of "hard blame".)

*applauds SirGUess' post*

Bravo! You got the point!

Rafael has pointed out, on numerous occasions,

that God calls Job BLAMELESS. Those who place

the blame on JOB, therefore, contradict God.

"Why did Job's kids die? Oh, Job was afraid."

For those of you who somehow missed it,

that's BLAMING JOB.

----------------------------------------------

BTW, just for fun....

A few months after the 9/11 attacks, people in

NYC were more than a little hesitant to

congregate in groups. In fact, the Halloween

Parade that year was feared to be an excellent

target for a terrorist attack. (I won't go into

the reasons, but you can figure them out

yourself.) As a result, a LOT of people who were

all set to attend, even those with ready

costumes, cancelled their plans. They stayed

home, indoors, afraid with their families. In

fact, malls in general were deserted that

Halloween because of a rumour of an attack.

So, millions upon millions of people were afraid

there was going to be terrorist attacks, either

at the mall, or at the parade. (That includes

family of people who cancelled and family of

people who attended.)

What was the net result of all that fear?

Lowered attendance at the parade. People stayed

home.

What about the amassed fear of an attack?

Well, didn't result in anything, no matter how

many people feared it.

My favourite costume that year?

A guy with his head dressed like an Osama bin

Laden puppet, in prison stripes, wearing a

barred cage around the "prisoner". :)-->

I'll tell you, though...it was the FEAR....in

the HEARTS...of the people....that made it

easier to move thru traffic.

SARS, anyone? How about that flesh-eating

bacteria from years ago? Or getting AIDS off

dirty toilet seats from before that? Or the

absolute TERROR of Y2K in 1999, or "the bomb"

back in the '50s? Tens of millions of people

in the US alone feared all those.

Folks,

As Mike promised at the top of this page,

(7/10/03, 2:33pm),

that was Mike "outwitting" me.

------------------------------------------

Mike,

Let me clarify what I meant by saying that

I cited vpw's books.

I did NOT mean I just said

" vpw talks about this on page xx".

I did NOT mean

"vpw, on page xx, means this."

What I meant was that I posted extensive quotes

from the pages in question, AND

I provided the name of the book, and the page

number.

Therefore, anyone claiming that I had

misrepresented its contents could do 2 things:

A) Read the lengthier quotes and see what

they SAID.

B) Go back and look at the pages and see if the

context really does reflect that.

I'm unclear if you're saying the books didn't

say that at all.

However, it seems your response is to say

"well, the context negates that."

Um, Mike?

I posted a direct quote,

THEN offered an opinion.

You offered an opinion.

When pressed, you dropped a page number,

then offered an opinion.

Mike?

Why is anyone going to BELIEVE your opinion if

you do not provide a quote to support it?

If the context of a quote negates its meaning,

by all means, cite the quote and explain HOW it

does so.

Don't just drop numbers or opinions. Anybody can

offer opinions and drop numbers. You've

offered no reason to indicate the numbers you

mentioned have anything to do with your points,

and, if I only had your track record to go from,

I'd certainly not extend you the benefit of the

doubt, even so much as to look them up. Do your

own work.

============================================

Actually, the "Law of Believing" is simply

stated. If it is a "Law", it does not NEED

lengthy codicils and provisos. Its meaning can

be stated in one sentence. Claiming it needs

support by pages and pages of provisos is to

call it a guideline or a good idea, but not a

"LAW".

Either believing is a LAW and ALWAYS works, or

it is a rule-of-thumb and does NOT always work.

This subject has been beaten to death on other

threads already, by people more erudite on the

subject than myself.

As we have seen, it does NOT always work as

stated. Even quoted briefly on this thread, we

see it does not work. (Rafael is still alive,

other people believing to stay alive are dead.)

Claiming they needed to believe more is that

famous evasion Rafael has ALREADY pointed out.

==========================================

I noticed that you quoted some of MY quotes

of vpw's books, then announced they were

separated from their contexts.

Well, duh!

I provided the lengthier quotes, WITH THEIR

CONTEXTS, in my post, THEN I provided the

short list. Want to see their context? Scroll

up a bit!

=======================================

BTW, nothing in vpw's work in the blue book

OR the orange book, WHEN MENTIONING THE LAW

OF BELIEVING, indicates the explanation is in

any way deficient or leaving anything out.

Nothing indicates "well, this only applies

when the Bible is a factor, and is meaningless

when trying to apply it to something else."

I have now placed the "burden of proof" on

you. I have claimed that the statements of the

"LAW OF BELIEVING" never make a certain claim

(stated in the previous paragraph I wrote.)

To disprove me, you will need to go to at least

one place vpw stated his "LAW OF BELIEVING",

cite the law, then cite the statement I claimed

doesn't exist.

To do otherwise is a misdirection meant to

hide the fact that such a comment doesn't exist.

===============================================

BTW, the explanations I gave on the "Law of

Believing" were consistent to EACH quote of

vpw's books, as everybody ELSE can see.

In making comments about trusting God, vpw

FIRST stated his "LAW". He explained it. He

then went from the general to the specific:

believing as a LAW to believing GOD'S PROMISES.

Those are similar subjects, but he was trying to

establish causality. God's promises do not come

true because we focus our minds like a camera,

get our needs and wants parallel, or anything

else WE do. God's promises come true because

GOD IS TRUSTWORTHY. We never claimed God's

promises shouldn't be believed. We claimed vpw's

esoteric claims and outlines of a "LAW OF

BELIEVING" were contraBiblical and not truly a

law.

==============================================

Oh, that's novel.

VPW made charts for use. VPW made a syllabus for

use. VPW wrote books. VPW did classes.

Each session builds on the previous ones. Each

session does not NEGATE the previous ones.

==============

VPW uses several charts with specific outlines,

which HE EXPECTED US TO MEMORIZE. The

"Listening With A Purpose" questions

guaranteed we'd do exactly that-they REQUIRED

the exact responses. We were REQUIRED to walk

out of Session One with the following

information MEMORIZED:

1) What is the greatest secret is the world

today? The greatest secret in the world today

is that the Bible is the revealed Word and

Will of God.

2) To receive anything from God, what five

things must we know? a) What is available

b) how to receive it c) what to do with it

d) needs and wants must be parallel

e) God's ability equals God's willingness

3) What are the two sides of believing?

Negative and Positive beleiving

4) What defeats the promises of God? Fear.

5) What is the difference between 'apistia'

and 'apitheia'?

==============

Each session had ONE page in the main syllabus.

The title, verse references, and Listening With

a Purpose questions took up about 1/2 the page.

For Session One, the entire other half of the

page is taken up by a single chart.

This chart says, across its bottom in BIG

LETTERS:

"BELIEVING EQUALS RECEIVING".

The rest of the chart contrasts

confidence, trust and faith with

doubt, worry and fear,

clearly labelling both as believing, clearly

setting them in diammetric opposition, and

clearly indicating they work exactly the same.

=====================================

The purpose of the chart is to guarantee that

EVERY student think of Believing as a LAW,

(answer 3, both sides of believing). According

to that page, each side of believing is

equally powerful, and equally effective.

Further, question 2 indicates that we need to

"have our needs and wants parallel" to receive.

(Your own quote echoes this.)

VPW specifically intended us to believe this,

else he would NOT have SHOVED IT DOWN OUR

THROATS in Session One, as well as explaining

it in the blue book and the orange book,

in exactly the same way. Gee, you think he was

trying to tell us something, or did he want us

to subordinate all this, at some later point,

to the idea that ONLY God's promises work that

way?

BTW, your lengthy quote (which addressed one sentence with a multi-page quote) also asserts

that we must have "our needs and wants

parallel" to receive from God.

It claims that the red curtains were "proof"

that she had her needs and wants parallel, and

uses that "proof" that the needs and wants

parallel is a legitimate rule.

"People, she must have had her need and want

parallel. Look at this. All right! She rented a

furnished apartment and it had to have drapes

on the window, right? Does it make God any

difference whether the drapes are green or red

or pink?

No, but she had a need, that need

was that they might as well have red drapes

on, that's what she wanted. She got her need

and her want parallel."

First of all, most apartments do not come

pre-furnished with curtains. Second, furnished

apartments can have venetian blinds or any

colour curtains. A NEED is a place to live.

A WANT is a specific COLOUR of the place to

live. If you had an immediate need for a place

to live, and the need was filled immediately

with an apartment coloured PUCE, would you say

your needs had not been met?

"No but she had a need, that need was that they

might as well have red drapes on, that's what

she wanted."

This tortured sentence is the sole linchpin for

saying this had something to do with vpw's

made-up rule about needs and wants.

"The need was that they might as well have

red drapes on" A need is for an apartment.

A need is for something to block the window.

A need is not "they might as well have red

drapes". "MIGHT AS WELL" is not a need-it's a

LUXURY.

"That's what she wanted."

Well, that much is true. She wanted red drapes.

She did not NEED red drapes. (She needed an

apartment, and she needed to block the windows.)

Her needs and wants were not "parallel".

She did get what she asked of God.

"She must have had her need and her want

parallel." That's what vpw believed, but the

facts fail to line up with the theory. Please

also remember this was the specific example

vpw used to illustrate the "needs and wants

parallel". Therefore, this was the BEST, most

DIRECT example of his rule.

============================================

You said that in "many places" vpw said the

promise of God was "mandatory".

"Suppose I found TWO. Would that satisfy you?"

No, and it shouldn't.

If you found it in EACH place vpw shoved it

down our throats in the blue book and the

orange book, that would get my attention for

sure.

If he said it in SOME places, but established

his rule somewhere else, that means he

remembered to include God PART OF THE TIME.

THE FIRST MENTION OF SOMETHING IN GOD'S WORD

EXPLAINS ITS USAGE, according to the orange

book. (I quoted this already.)

In the first, second, third, fourth, fifth,

etc. mentions of the "LAW OF BELIEVING", vpw

clearly laid down his explanation. That was in

the blue book AND the orange book. Therefore,

all later explanations must be IN LIGHT OF THE

UNDERSTANDING OG THE EXPLANATIONS THERE.

Unless the pfal books are not actually

"THE WORD OF GOD",

which is your assertion.

So, you'd have to find it in THOSE places.

===========================================

vpw said

"the law, simply stated is that what we believe

for or expect, we get. This applies in every

realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual."

Mike said

"So, remember, this is an abbreviated version."

WordWolf replies

"No-this is a 'simply stated' version. There is

a big difference between the two."

As to claiming I took the numerous references out of

context, see above.

My comments on Elijah were to illustrate you don't know

your way around the Bible. Why is that an insult to you,

since you consider the Bible superceded by pfal?

My comments on Session One were more significant to this

thread.

You seem unfamiliar with the MAIN POINTS of Session One.

That's after FIVE YEARS. Session One is the foundation

for the other sessions. (Sessions work in succession-that's

why they're in that order.) Therefore, unfamiliarity with

them is unfamiliarity with the BASIS of EVERYTHING ELSE

vpw taught.

=========================================

You're quoting what vpw said now! How nice!

Sadly, you missed the point each time.

As has already been pointed out previously,

if vpw quotes a verse of the Bible, then

says "if you just believe this is vp talking",

it doesn't necessarily mean he's saying

EVERYTHING he's saying is the Bible. The most

obvious, most direct, most straightforward

understanding is that when we quote the Bible,

correctly, it's NOT just us talking-it's the

promise we just read.

If I read Psalms and add our understanding, and

add meanings that don't exist there, then what

we said is NOT the promise of God.

This was explained plenty of times, by plenty of

people, every time you've done that.

=======================================

You also said

"How do you know your citations weren't buried in

the threads before I could get to it?"

You made a flip comment to the part of the same

post that did NOT cite Session One.

I'll fetch the page, date and time if I can

find it. It might be on this or another one of

your threads.

So, it was not 'buried'. You READ the thing. You CHOSE

not to reply.

========================================================

"Again I sense the air of a desperate man?"

Mike, I based my statements on evidence.

I provided the evidence, laid the foundation,

provided my rationale, THEN formed my conclusions.

ANYONE reading the thread could follow them

step-by-step. That's similar to what attorneys

do, and is called 'disclosure'. I've confined my

evidence to what YOU'VE called canonical and what you

have easy access to-the pfal books. I've invoked

THEM, not secret messages. That's why everybody else

can see my points.

"The air of a desperate man?"

Not me. My theology isn't the one that's failing to hold

up to scrutiny on many grounds.

MJ,

too soon to tell.

I think "A" is unlikely.

Could be "B" or "C".

(Or the longshot "A".)

------------------------------

Aw, Goey, I was hoping you'd

post a 'recap'.

At least you've got them

handy. Please fix the typos

when posting.

I would have, but I didn't review that many

pages when posting. I would have edited them

when I realized, but I wanted to avoid

accusations I might have made major editing

changes. They would have been without merit,

but or resident student of misdirection might

have capitalized on any chance to distract.

*skims the above posts*

Oooh! He's going to "outwit" me! You heard it

here first, folks...

Goey,

part of the reason my post on page 33 (32?)

quoted so much of the blue book and the orange

book was so that those who wanted to quote

directly from them could do so, complete with

the context. vpw's "definition" of "law" was

in there, and consistent with what everybody

else means by "law"-something immutable and

sovereign, not a general guideline or a good

idea.

Mind you, this is consistent with your

understanding of what vpw said. I agree with

your definition, explanation and exposition.

I just object to you saying you only had

Rafael's post to draw from, when I spent all

that time typing in my previous post.

So, if you cut-and-pasted the direct quotes

from vpw's books and the discussion we did on

the other page, and added what you and Rafael

said on the subject, I'd be amenable, even

grateful. It's all the same subject. In fact,

I suspect Rafael saved himself 45 minutes and

just cited the previous page.

===============================================

For everybody else,

Mike said (7/09/03 7:39pm) the following:

====

"About the word 'law' it seems that you have

certain criteria that you apply to determine that

it is not a law according to your definition.

But it is Dr's definition that we need to determine.

I simply have not yet done that."

"The best I understand SO FAR about laws is that they

apply to every person, in every place, at all times,

and they're relatively simple. That's some of the most

important elements that go into defining laws in the

realm of science, but I'm not sure yet as to what

degree Dr defines 'law' this way too."

========

Ok, Mike's understanding of 'law' doesn't seem to be

that far from what vpw was saying. (As originally

cited a page or so back.)

I'd like to point out, however, that Mike has freely

admitted he doesn't know what vpw said about "laws".

What vpw said about "laws" was all over Session I,

the Blue Book, and the Orange Book!

(See previous citations from same about a page back

if you don't have yours in front of you.)

Some time ago, I cited the first Session of pfal,

"The Greatest Secret in the World Today", and how

its main points contradicted his main thesis.

That's also the same session where vpw outlines his

doctrines on believing and laws and all that.

As we saw (from my earlier post), the collaterals

(Orange, Blue) said the same in them.

(From Rafael's post, we know the other books include

this doctrine also.)

A page ago, Mike utterly mangled the story of Elijah,

whose name he couldn't even get close to remembering.

(He didn't even confuse him with Elisha, which would be

understandable.) This is especially strange, since vpw

taught on Elijah. This is partially understandable, since

Mike has proudly proclaimed the inferiority of the Bible,

and, as such, might well not have opened the book for years.

So, what does this tell us?

This tells us:

A) Mike doesn't know his way around the Bible. Many of the

church-Christians Mike would view as having an inferior

understanding have a greater understanding of the Bible

than he does. (Since he doesn't care what it says, this

should not be seen by him as an insult.) To those of you

wondering if he's using the Bible as criteria for

determining things or ANYTHING ELSE, the answer is "no".

Mike doesn't KNOW the Bible, and doesn't use it for

anything.

B) MIKE DOES NOT KNOW THE CONTENTS OF PFAL.

Mike periodically makes assertions that vpw said certain

things, or "never" said certain other things. Mike never

seems to cite the orange book, the blue book or any other

book in doing so. This is especially peculiar, since Mike's

theology holds that these books hold the same position that

the Bible held to those of us who paid attention in pfal.

So, when we quote PAGE AFTER PAGE of material that vpw

wrote, it becomes obvious what vpw said. We looked at

several pages of vpw's writings a few pages back, more than

once. These quotes were diametrically opposed to what vpw

said. (They said the OPPOSITE what Mike SAID they said.)

Mike's response was NOT to amend his thinking to match the

pfal materials (which would be internally-consistent to

Mike's STATED theology). Mike's response was ALSO not to

cite another place in the same books, trying to refute

the previous quotes. What was Mike's response?

Well, way back when I cited Session One originally, Mike's

response was to pretend I didn't, and hope the points would

go away if he never acknowledged them. More recently, his

responses to DIRECT QUOTATIONS from vpw's writings was to

say 'vpw didn't teach that', or claims vpw's quotes were

misrepresented. First of all, I cited the books and

pages. If vpw DIDN'T teach that, it would be VERY SIMPLE to

turn to those pages, and find that when I said "this is the

entire content of page xx", it said something else entirely.

A simple posting of the true material would certainly have

discredited my post. So, vpw DID teach that, and SOME of

the pages where he did so were listed, and posted.

Second, again, I typed in several pages, often including

CONTEXT. I cited the page numbers each time. If the context

utterly invalidated my points, it would be a simple matter

to turn to the pages, cite the context where the opposite

was said, and discredit my points. Mike's defense was to

distract, dodge and evade, not to bring in EVIDENCE which

would have been very easy to find. (I posted the page

numbers.) Mike holds to his POV even when it is obvious

that vpw taught the opposite, and, according to Mike, it's

vpw's writings that are the greatest way to understand what

God said.

I mentioned this in passing, but I didn't think about the

implications of it until Steve mentioned it as well.

Mike does not know the contents of the Bible, and Mike does

not know the contents of vpw's books. Personally, I'm

curious if he even has a copy of them at present, or if he's

relying on his memory of what he thinks the pfal books said.

Mike's theology is in no way based on the Bible.

Mike's theology is in no way based on vpw's pfal books.

This has been pointed out, in parts, many times. At the

moment, we can see that we probably grossly

misunderestimated the degree to which Mike is ignorant of

the contents of the books upon which he claims to base his

theology.

=======================================

I shall now make a prediction.

Mike will react to this post in one of 3 ways:

A) Stop posting for a while, then, when he resumes

posting, pretend this post never existed.

(Denial is not just a river in Eqypt.)

B) Resume posting immediately, but post on

completely unrelated subjects, pretending this

post never existed.

(Denial is not just a river in Egypt.)

C) Resume posting immediately, making attacks

on my character, attempting to discredit my

post while UTTERLY FAILING TO PROVIDE A QUOTE

FROM VPW'S BOOKS. This will fail to address

my main point, but will serve his main

technique in discussion, as he stated once.

"Dodge, distract, evade. But never admit an

error is an error."

Of course, in this case, admitting an error is

an error would admit his entire theology is

in no way based on vpw's books.

Any bets on which of the three he's going to

use? He's used them all against my posts before...

(somehow, this was a double post)

[This message was edited by WordWolf on July 08, 2003 at 10:36.]

Mike,

the blue book "the Bible Tells Me So"

says the following on the subject of

believing:

(page 28) "WHAT WE BELIEVE EQUALS WHAT WE ARE"

(pg-29) "What We Believe = What We are

The law of believing is dynamically powerful,

yet so simple. The law, simply stated, is that

what we believe for or expect, we get.

This applies in every realm: physical, mental,

material, spiritual. Thus it is this law which

basically controls the abundant life. Only if

we believe and expect abundance will we ever

realize abundance in our lives.

'The Synchronized Life' shows that our lives are

molded by our believing-both by positive and

negative believing. This law is further

explained and proved in 'The Law of Believing'

so that we will become aware of our own

thinking and then be able to control our

thinking so as to manifest the abundant life

which is promised in God's Word."

-----------------------------------======

That was the entire contents of both pages.

except for the last 2 words of the second page,

God doesn't enter the picture.

(page 31) "Chapter Four.

The Synchronized Life

Whatever a person believes is directly reflected

in what he confesses. What a person confesses in

his innermost being is what he brings into

manifestation in his life. If a person goes

through life confessing that he has great need,

he will definitely have great need. If he

confesses sickness, he will continue to be sick

and afflicted because of the law that what one

believes in the depth of his soul absolutely

appears in his life.

The "synchronized life" is simply stated by this

formula: confession of belief yields receipt of

confession."

----------------------------------------------

pg-43 and 44. "The law of believing brings

phenomenal results to all those who apply and

practice the principles.

You may believe rightly or wrongly. Believing

works both ways, and you bring to yourself

whatever you believe."

pg-44."Fear, worry and anxiety are types of

believing. If you worry, have fear and are

anxious you will receive the fruit of your

negative believing which is defeat.

The law of believing works equally effectively

for both the sinner and the saint..."

Chapter One, "Release From Your Prisons".

pg-8. "How have you mentally pictured yourself

for the past week, month, year, ten years? The

picture that you carry of yourself with

clearness and with concern is what you are.

This law works for positive and negative

thinking alike."

pg-6 and 7.

"A camera offers an appropriate analogy of the

means by which you can get results to prayer and

find release from your prisons. If you want an

answer to prayer, first get your object in mind.

You select what you want in your picture. This

is step one: youre CLEAR on what you want.

Secondly, you use the range finder and focus

the subject properly. Then consider the length

of exposure of the picture so that all factors

may work together for a perfect picture. After

all this, shoot the picture.

When you are focused on the picture of what you

want, keep your mind stayted on it. If you

allow something else to come in and take

precedence over that picture you will get a

blurred answer to prayer; you will not get the

results you desire; you will not get release

from the prison which is encasing you.

If you want to get rid of something today, youmust focus, dwell on what you want. It is

the introduction of light that dispels darkness,

not the dwelling on the darkness that introduces

light. If you want more business, better

relations between employer and employee or a better job, get your desire in mind, focus on it

and then determine the exposure time needed to

accomplish the task.

If you want to get out of your prisons today,

immediately change your thinking about your

situation: change your subject of focus. As you

change your thinking, you will draw a mental

pattern for the things you DO want in your life,

which in turn will dispel and root out all those

things you do not want."

-----------------------------------------------

Mike said

"Dr never taught that random, personal or 8-ball

wishes could be indulged with this law." "It's

not just any old random desire that can be

believed, it has to be a promise of God, and

this is stated over and over in PFAL." "This is

the second big lie about Dr propounded in those

years."

VPW said

"What we believe for, we get."

"Our lives are molded by our believing-both by

positive and negative believing."

"What we believe equals what we are."

"What one believes in the depth of his soul

absolutely appears in his life."

"You bring to yourself whatever you believe."

"The law of believing works equally effectively

for both sinner and saint"

"The picture that you carry of yourself with

clearness and concern is what you are. This law

works for positive and negative thinking alike."

"As you change your thinking, you will draw a

mental pattern for the things you DO want in

your life, which in turn will dispel and root

out those things you do not want."

WordWolf, commenting on VPW, said of VPW's

teachings in PFAL,

"As stated, God is irrelevant, and so is the

content of what is believed."

Mike said of WordWolf's comment,

"Wrong, wrong, wrong!

You're propounding the same lie now."

Really, Mike?

I say the references to God, and prayer are

incidental in the instructions on believing.

As you saw, the requirements to receive

involve BELIEVING, and focusing your believing.

At no point is a REQUIREMENT made for your

believing being believing a promise of God.

It was believing and your mental focus and

picture that determine success or failure to

receive. At NO point is it said that if you

believe, but what you believe is NOT what God

promises, you won't get it no matter how much

you believe it.

BTW, the Foundational class syllabus (which you

got when you took the Advanced class) mentions

a few of these things, and says:

"What you fear, you will receive-it is a law."

-------------------------------------------

The orange book ALSO addresses the subject of

believing.

page 32.

"The law of believing is the greatest law in the

Word of God. As a matter of fact, it is not only

the greatest law in The Word, it is the greatest

law in the whole world. Believing works for

saint and sinner alike."

page 35.

(after referencing Mark 11:23)

"This is the great law in the Word of God.

'Whosoever...' It does not say Christian or

non-Christian; whosoever means whosoever.

"Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be

thou removes, and...cast into the sea and shall

not doubt...but shall believe that those things

which he saith shall come to pass; he shall

have whatsoever he saith.' In other words, say

it, believe it, and it will come to pass."

"The law of believing is the greatest law in

the Word of God: whosoever says it, whosoever

believes, will act and receive."

-------------------------------------------

page 38.

"If one is afraid of a disease, he will manifest

that disease because the law is that what one

believes (in this case, what one believes

negatively), he is going to receive."

his law of negative and positive believing works

for both Christian and non-Christian. When we

believe, we receive the results of our believing

regardless of who or what we are."

page 42-44 cover the story of the woman whose

fear "killed her son".

page 44.

"What one fears will surely come to pass. It is

a law. Have you ever heard about people who set

the time of their death? When somebody says

'Well, this time next year I will not be here,"

if you are a betting man, bet your money, you

are going to win. If a person makes up his mind

that this time next year he is going to be

dead, God would have to change the laws of the

universe for the person not to be accomodated."

---------------------------------------------

Mike said

"It's not just any old random desire that can

be believed, it has to be a promise of God, and

this is stated over and over in PFAL."

We just saw what PFAL said.

Oakspear said

"Mike, are you also unfamiliar with the section

of PFAL where Wierwille states that if a man

believes that he will die within a certain

time frame that God would have to rewrite all

His laws not to accomodate him?

What promise of God guarantees that people will

die if they believe to do so?"

Ok, we saw the account. Sure enough-that's what

PFAL says in the orange book. (Page 44.)

Shazdancer brought up the red drapes. I don't

know if it's in the books, but we ALL remember

the "fire-engine red" curtains mentioned in

the PFAL class.

Shazdancer said

"are red drapes a promise of God?"

Mike said

"Dr never taught that random, personal or

8-ball wishes could be indulged with this law."

So, Mike, the "fire-engine red curtains"

mentioned in the live class, the redness was not

"personal"?

==============================================

As VPW taught it, believing IN AND OF ITSELF

appropriated results, REGARDLESS OF THE CONTENT

OF WHAT IS BELIEVED.

"The law, simply stated, is that what we believe

for or expect, we get. This applies in every

realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual."

Mike said

"Dr teaches over and over that God's promises

are a MUST in the law of believing....

The page references are numerous."

Really, Mike?

We just SAW "numerous" references.

BTW, Mike,

don't pretend I said vpw said God's promises

are irrelevant, or that we shouldn't believe

God. He did say we should believe God, and to

believe His promises.

What I AM saying is that as vpw taught it in

pfal, the CONTENT of what is believed is

incidental to appropriate it.

The page references are numerous AND GIVEN

ABOVE.

===============================================

Please stop speculating on the contents of the

pfal books when it's obvious you're rather

unfamiliar with their contents.

Finally,

Looks like you owe me an apology for saying I

misrepresented the contents of the pfal books.

I'll put it on your tab.

===============================================

Other than Mike or seaspray, does anyone out

there Mike was correct on pfal's points on

believing, and that I was INcorrect?

If so, please speak up.

(If you think I'm wrong, please cite some

evidence.)

================================================

Oakspear,

now THAT was my full attention on a post. :)-->

Goey:

If memory serves, you have a background in

philology, or at least a firmer grounding in the

languages of the Bible. Please explain the

term "condesensio" from the Latin and explain

precisely WHY its not a license for us to be

snide and arrogant with each other.

(I'm amazed it even has to be said.) It came

up on the bottom of page 32 (the page where I

quoted the orange and white books' explanations

of how they came to be.)

As any student of pfal should have been able to

remember (let alone an afficionado of same),

the figure of speech "condesencio" (Latin) is

also called "anthorpopatheia (Greek) or

'derech banai Adam" (Hebrew). It describes the

attributes of humans. The Greek name of this

figure was said to mean literally "pathos of

man". Anyway, Goey, please explain it more

fully, in that manner in which you are rather

qualified.

-----------------------------------------------

Mike,

It doesn't surprise me that you're seeking to

wiggle out of the direct, obvious and expressed

meanings of the relevant citations of the

orange and white books as to how we got them.

Both pretty much tell the same story. VPW had

a background with lots of work of people who

tried to explain the Bible. He concluded that

the proper solution was to discard what they

wrote (3000 volumes, according to the orange

book). Once he had done that, he then did all

his OWN study, using only the Bible. It would

be appropriate to consider TRANSLATIONS of the

Bible-interlinears, texts in Greek, Aramaic,

Hebrew, Latin, concordances- to be included in

this (or at least fair), since they don't

constitute commentaries, just translations of

the same book. (Or an index, in the case of the

concordance.)

Your attempts to try to depict "The Word" as

referring to "the Bible, and specific

commentaries"-Stiles, Bullinger, Leonard,

Kenyon- as opposed to all other commentaries,

which were discarded as useless, is without

merit. We can wrangle exact meanings of this

in the orange book, since there are few words

discussing this in the relevant passage.

The white book is another story.

Just going from the preface (quoted in its

entirety on page 32 of this thread), VPW was

VERY specific, excruciatingly clear, notably

unambiguous, concerning the contributions of

others to the contents of that book.

The best thing he could say of ANY other

Christians when seeking material on the subject

was that they were "sincere", then saying the

famous quote "sincerity is no guarantee of

truth". This means that the nicest thing he said

about other Christians was that they meant

well, but they did not have the correct

information. He did not say "most of them don't

know, but a few DO understand", or say, "only

a bare handful of Christians teach anything of

substance on this subject". He said rather

clearly that the material contents were the

result of work alone. You can NOT say that he

was using the term "The Word" to mean "the

Bible and a handful of other books I found

useful" here under anybody's definition. That's

because he was more specific in his description.

(However, the orange book's answer is clear to

everyone except you.) In the white book, he

said he made "THE BIBLE" his textbook.

(Feel free to review the preface) He was very

specific about the work of other Christians on

this subject-they were clueless- and he was

specific on his research texts for the white

book-the Bible, and that's it.

It is fair to expect that small asides-like the

properly-accredited Lamsa notes in one

appendix-do not invalidate this claim. After

all, a minor quote hardly counts as the bulk of

the work.

I'll reply to your characterization of me in the

appropriate manner at a time convenient to me.

You have until then to anticipate my reply.

(Which you should have no difficulty doing, as

it is very predictable.)

I will say this much at this hour-

my use of the term "miracle" and the term

"instant" as nearly interchangeable was per

VPW's definitions of "miracle", in that

miracles occur "instantly". That's per the

Advanced class and was taught by VPW on a

number of other occasions. The one that springs

to mind for me is from the keynote teachings

of ROA '76 (Healing), the night he taught on

the man at the temple gate beautiful (Acts).

Let me know if you need me to dig out the

precise quote on the subject. (If you have that

tape, it is right where he claims that all 9

manifestations are shown in that exact

account.)

------------------------------------------------

For those of you curious about copyright law

(something that all Christians except,

apparently, vpw and Mike think is a legitimate

legal, ethical and moral issue),

you might want to check out the following

links for a little background

(what does it mean, why does every country

subscribe to them, etc.)

http://www.iccwbo.org/home/intellectual_pr...ntation/wwh.asp

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Mike:

A) I'm not going to keep pushing the anomalous

references in OMSW, since you refuse to get the

most likely reason for it. That's ok-anybody

ELSE could see it. So, I'll move on to some

fun stuff... :)-->

B) I had said

"The point was that vpw deliberately gave the impression

that, regardless of any other person out there, the orange

book and the white book were the results of his OWN work,

and NOT primarily the contributions of others."

You replied (7/5/02. 10:46pm, this page)

"WordWolf, I don't know how you can say [that].

Dr never made a point of his originality..."

Well, since I was addressing the orange and white books,

I thought I'd direct you to what the ORANGE AND WHITE BOOKS

say on the subject.....

--------

Power for Abundant Living, pages 119-120.

"For years I did nothing but read around the Word of God. I

uesd to read two or three theological works weekly for

month after month and year after year. I knew what Professor

so-and-so said, what Dr so-and-so and the Right Reverend

so-and-so said, but I could not quote you The Word. I had

not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired

of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3,000 volumes

of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit

reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years

studying The Word-its integrity, its meaning, irs words.

Why do we study? Because God expects us as workmen to know

what His Word says."

----------------------------------------------

For those of you following along at home, if he read FOUR

books a week (as opposed to "2 or 3" as he said) every week,

every year, it would take 15 years to make it thru 3,000

volumes-without rereading any. (4 books times 52 weeks is

208 books a year. 15 years at that pace would make it thru

all those books.) Considering he had to be either

completing his education, working, or both during this time,

and including things like a trip to India interrupting this,

this would be an INCREDIBLE pace to maintain.

(Of course, if you think he was at the pinnacle of human

ability, this is not an unreasonable feat.) Just thought

you guys would like the numbers crunched.

Ok, back to the main point.

He contrasted "reading 2 or 3 theological works"-his

past behavior-with his current behavior. After he dumped

"over 3,000 volumes" , he "decided to quit reading around

The Word." He contrasted reading 2 or 3 theological works

a week with "spending years studying The Word."

In plain English, what would a normal reader make of this

citation?

He or she would say that vpw has just claimed that he gave

up reading commentaries and other books ABOUT Scripture,

discarded his entire library of such books, and set about

reading only The Word, and no commentaries.

Yes, that's not what YOU'RE going to say it says, but that's

what anybody without a vested interest in the sentence would

take its meaning to be.

(Anybody know where he kept such a collection of books?

If he could fit 25 books on a shelf-which would mean they

are pretty small books-he would need 120 shelves. If he

could fit each shelf in a 3-foot space, and stacked the

shelves 7 high, he would need over 40 stacks. This would

require at least 2 regular rooms just to store all the

books, or one room with 48' on 2 walls, and 12' on the other

2 walls.)

--------------------

So, if we are to consider the orange book AUTHORITATIVE and

CANONICAL, we MUST accept vpw's statement at face value-

he had such a storage space for that many books, he had that

many books IN that space, he had read all of them over a

period of time 15 years or more (more if he read "2 or 3"

every week), he made the deliberate decision to trash them

all and forsake commentaries, and he then spent the next

several years studying The Word while forsaking any further

commentaries. Do you DARE contradict the "clear meaning"

of that passage?

If the orange PFAL book is canonical-The Word of God-and

perfect, as The Word of God MUST be, and its own explanation

as to how it is to be read is to be accepted

(more than 80-85% of The Word of God read plainly, just as

it's written), then we DARE not claim vpw did anything other

than forsake all commentaries and study ONLY The Word.

-----------------------------------------

If you are prepared to claim the orange book is WRONG on

this, and that it is NOT The Word, and perfect, then you

can discard this passage, but you must forsake your theology

as well.

-----------------------------------------------------------

So, the orange book PLAINLY claims it (the orange book) was

the results of his OWN work, and NOT primarily the

contributions of others. In fact, its claim is that the

work of others is the ANTITHESIS of its contents-it is

the OPPOSITE of a book containing work of others-studies

of other theologians, scholars, etc.

I don't know how you can claim otherwise-

if you TRUST the orange book's testimony of itself.

---------------------------------------------------------

What about the WHITE book? Does the white book contain

such a claim as well?

-------

The white "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" book...

The preface, pages ix to xi (the ENTIRE preface.)

"When I was serving my first congregation, a Korean

missionary asked me, Why don't you search for the greatest

of all things in life which would teach Christian believers

the HOW of a really victorious life?" This challenge was the

beginning of a search which led me through many, many hours

of examining different English translations, the various

critical Greek texts, and Aramaic "originals", looking for

the source of the power which was manifested in the early

Church.

Finally I realized that the experience referred to as

"receiving the holy spirit" in the Scriptures WAS and IS

actually available to every born-again believer today. I

believed to receive the gift og holy spirit and I, too,

manifested.

Ever since receiving into manifestation the holy spirit, I

have had the desire to put in written form the longings and

fears that were mine regarding the receiving thereof. I

believe that sharing my quest with the believers who are

today seeking to be endued with power from on high may be

instrumental in leading them to the answer of their hearts'

desires.

I knew from the Bible that what God sent at Pentecost was

still available. It had to be, for God does not change. I

knew that the receiving of the power from on high on the

day of Pentecost had meant increased ability for the

apostles and disciples years ago, and that I needed and

wanted the same blessing. I knew that if the Church ever

needed the holy spirit in manifestation it needed it now.

Throughout my academic training in a college, a university,

four seminaries, from the commentaries I studied, and from

my years of questing and research among the various

religious groups claiming adherence to the holy spirit's

availability, there appeared many things contradictory to

the accuracy of the recorded Word of God. I knew their

teachings were sincere, but sincerity is no guarantee for

truth.

The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside

all I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew

with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. I

did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for,

the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must

fit like a hand in a glove.

If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you

to study this book. Do not allow your past teachings or

feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God's

best. If you need power and ability to face up to the snares

of this life, you may find your answer while reading this

book. It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted,

and comforted.

For those searching the Scriptures, desiring to know the

reasons why, how, what or where, I suggest you do a

carefult study of the introductions as well as the

appendicies in this volume. For those who simply desire to

receive, read chapters 1 through 5 and enjoy God's great

presence and power.

II Timothy 2:15

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that

needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of

truth.

To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound

depth. This seventh edition has been read and studied

carefully by men and women of Biblical and spiritual

ability. To all of these I am most grateful."

----------------------------------------------------------

Ok, that's a lot of writing. The meaning is straightforward,

however.

The preface says that this book is the result of vpw's own

personal search for "the source of the power which was

manifested in the early Church." This search was prompted

by a question from a Korean missionary, and was conducted

through "translations", "Greek text", and "Aramaic". This

personal "quest" "put aside" everything he had "heard"

from "college, a university, four seminaries",

"commentaries", and "various religious groups claiming

adherence to the holy spirit's availability", "sincere"

thought they were. This personal "quest", instead,

was conducted with the Bible only, as "handbook" and

"textbook".

So, in plain English, this book was the product of vpw's

studies in the Bible, and contains nothing from religious

groups, commentaries, and so on.

In case you are wondering, the introduction and appendicies

do NOT invalidate this claim. There's 2 footnotes on

Lamsa in the LAST appendix, and NO mention of Stile,

Leonard or Bullinger in them at all.

So, that is what the white book clearly claims of itself.

It is the byproduct of the work of one man, vpw. This one

man consulted with Lamsa on a few points in the last

appendix, and several other people proofread the finished

work and latest edition, but NOBODY else wrote the material

upon which the book is based.

That's the plain meaning of the preface, as anyone CAN

clearly see. (Whether or not everyone would ADMIT to it is

a different story.)

--------------------------------------------

You said "Dr never made a point of his originality."

vpw clearly wrote the opposite in RTHST. Now, if RTHST

is The Word of God and canonical, you DARE not contradict

its claim to be an original work.

If you dare to claim otherwise, you must repudiate your

claim it is canonical.

(Either it is wrong, or you are.)

------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------

BTW, you said of Stiles, Bullinger, Leonard and Kenyon,

that they didn't mind that vpw plagiarized them.

"It seems that the men Dr utilized text templates from were

also operating in Daddy's family, and that neither they nor

Daddy minded. It's you who inappropriately bring into God's

family your worldly ethical system for students, professors,

writers, reporters, and the like. I see some wisdom in their

application to the respective arenas from which they were

devised. Within the family of God, I completely reject your

worldly system of man-made ethics."

-------

First of all, Mike,

Bullinger was DEAD when vpw added one of his books to the

RTHST book in one edition (and all successive editions), and

could hardly endorse this from the grave.

Second of all, Mike,

you're speculating wildly when you say the other men didn't

mind, and neither did God.

Neither such endorsement was ever given. That's mainly

because none was SOUGHT. VPW claimed it was his own work,

then kept it carefully from public circulation. Stiles

probably never heard of RTHST before HE died, and Leonard

added elaborate copyright warnings to all his work after he

learned of it. So Leonard, at least, DID mind, quite a bit.

Perhaps it was because he was mindful of fellow Christians

that he did not seek to recover damages, as he was legally

entitled to do. A "worldly ethical system" would try to

"get away with whatever you can". An ethical system for the

family would seek to treat each member respectfully, whether

they be present or not. The fact that all OTHER Christians

besides YOU are mindful of copyrights and respecting the

property and work of each other does not move you, I

suppose. I suppose you think this disregard makes you more

"spiritual" somehow.

(I am a little curious how you'd feel if someone else

rereleased vpw's books and claimed to be the author of

original works. No, don't answer-I don't expect a truthful

answer to that one.)

==========================================================

==========================================================

In case you missed it, side-comments made in a few tapes

here and there don't absolve one from responsibility of

giving proper credit where it is due. Several editions were

made of BOTH books. In ANY of them, credit could easily have

been added. vpw CHOSE not to do so. Since we were unaware

they were not wholly original books, we didn't pry when he

made comments that he learned a few things here and there

from other Christians. We believed vpw would never lie to

us, and that if his books contained work by someone else,

he'd CERTAINLY have told us.

We were trusting fools that way.

Never again.

----------------------------------------------------------

"Is that the red or the white?"

Mike,

this may come as a surprise to you, but so far,

nobody's posted that anybody is the be-all and

end-all guy, EXCEPT YOU. You've said that about

vpw.

Nobody's "looking with big goo-goo eyes" at

Bullinger, Kenyon, Leonard, Stiles or anybody

else. We learned the hard way that making any

man EXCEPT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST the be-all and

the end-all is bad news.

(At least, those of us HERE learned that.)

BTW, yes, I read the passage. I didn't say vpw

made Leonard out to be a lightweight. I said he

made out that Leonard was a lightweight

CONCERNING SCRIPTURE.

(Please read my posts as carefully as I read

yours.)

The point was that vpw deliberately gave the

impression that, regardless of any other person

out there, the orange book and the white book

were the results of his OWN work, and NOT

primarily the contributions of others.

You can compare that with your copy of "Babylon

Mystery Religion". All over that book are the

citations to "the Two Babylons". BMR was

basically a reworking of the book TTB. When I

read BMR, I was thankful for it, AND I was

thankful for TTB. I went out and bought BOTH. I

was thankful for BOTH and I read BOTH. (The fact

that they were later proven wrong doesn't

invalidate this.) Woodrow never claimed to

originate the material. NO edition of RSHST

references Stiles or Leonard. (I'd have to check

of they reference Bullinger's book.) As has been

shown by people doing line-by-line comparisons,

there were whole sentences, paragraphs, and

section outlines taken from each author.

If I had done that, I would have had NO difficulty

citing each, and mentioning each author in the

acknowledgements (among other places.) I've never

presented anyone else's work as my own. Once, I

did a Bible study on a subject. Once I was done,

I checked the Companion Bible to see what

Bullinger had to say on the subject. As it turns

out, he made the same point, and superceded mine.

I taught the fuller version, citing Bullinger.

If he had made the SAME points, I would have left

Bullinger out-he did NOT add to the teaching.

That was in front of a handful of people. When

something is in print, there's a greater

responsibility, legally, ethically and morally.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between

plagiarism, similar work and contributions.

If Rascal and Mike each do a study on Galatians,

and both (somehow) come up with the same points

independently, that's NOT plagiarism. If Rascal

and Mike each do a study on Galatians, and Mike

later takes sections of Rascal's study and

publishes a book with his own study, NEGLECTING

to cite Rascal, then it's plagiarism. If Mike

publishes the SAME book and acknowledges what

work is Rascal's, there might still be copyright

issues, but it is NOT plagiarism, nor is it

morally problematic. Further, while I wouldn't

lose sleep over a thick book having a sentence

somewhere being the work of a contributor, or an

assistant compiling data later used for an

analysis, it is NOT customary, nor is it legal,

to take an assistant's work-or a staff's work-

and slap your name on it after making a few

minor changes. You may put list yourself as the

"editor", but not as the WRITER. If vpw had

simply listed himself as the EDITOR of the

weightier books, that even you admit were the work

of the research staff, and gave their names,

say, in the acknowledgements if no where else and

said "this is their work" there, then, again,

it would be legal and correct.

Every time Leonard's name is mentioned in one of

"American Christian Press"'s books, his knowledge

of SCRIPTURE is slighted, NO citations of his

books or classes are given, and the impression

given by vpw (and Mrs vpw, in one citation) were

that vpw had to go find the verses covering the

material Leonard taught.

BTW, it is not "SURELY the case" that the other

authors used the work of others and neglected to

cite them. Plagiarism is not a matter of

speculation-it is a matter of PRINT and RECORD.

If you have even ONE uncited source for work

by Stiles, Leonard, or Bullinger, go ahead and

present it. Otherwise, to SUPPOSE they engaged in

the same illegal and immoral practice is sloppy.

(And also libel, BTW.)

---------------------------------------

This is an issue of honesty and integrity. It's a

character issue, and, if I really wanted to be

petty, I'd have contacted the holders of the

copyrights to the materials. It is not an

"ego trip". (How would it make ME more special

to point out someone else's illegal activity?)

"Dr was a mere servant, and he served you a good

product."

Ever see the movie "the Road to Wellville"?

Someone makes a breakfast cereal. At one point,

someone else intercepts his delivery truck,

takes the cereal, and repackages the cereal under

his OWN label. It is EXACTLY the same product,

with the SAME nutritional value. Would a

consumer, then, be wrong to want to know that it

was the OTHER product repackaged?

Whether or not the material we were taught is

any good is an entirely different subject from

whether or not it was illegally lifted from other

authors. Again, if the EXACT SAME BOOKS had

been printed with the proper citations,

acknowledgements and footnoting, this would not be

an issue. Children are taught to do this in

elementary school. Teens are taught this in high

school. Young adults are taught this in college.

Are you telling me that vpw-a man who received

a Masters degree and a Doctorate (regardless of

the source) was NOT aware this was both legal AND

fair? I mean, perhaps my schooling was superior

to his at the elementary and high school level

(which, considering my education at those levels,

is statistically likely), but at the collegiate

level, that gets hammered into any student trying

to graduate, in the subject of his major.

I am NOT complaining that vpw or anyone ELSE has

or had a function in The Body. Was it beneficial

for him to disregard the legally proper way to

conduct himself?

BTW, the distribution of vpw's books was tightly

held. Only innies had the books. He never

circulated them popularly. I take it that the

possible benefit that millions of Christians could

have received-and possibly followed back to TWI

for more books-was circumvented by other concerns.

(It couldn't be money, because even a poor seller

would have made a lot. It couldn't be criticism,

since he was already being criticized by some

organizations as a cult leader. If he'd released

quality books into the mainstream, it would have

gone a long way to silencing his critics.)

I know you find it inconceivable that he'd

consider the possibility of his books comparing

poorly with other books out there, and withhold

the books on that basis or other reasons-but some

of us think that may have been the reason, or A

reason.

BTW, Mike, you missed my point about OMSW. It's

my assertion that the anomalous appearance of a

citation there would be the act of the EDITOR.

Since vpw was dying during the book's compilation,

I hardly think he was pausing to spend hours on

it, editing. Cancer is a painful, debilitating

illness. If he tried to do that while in the

finals stages, he'd be unable to do much editing.

"Why don't you find out what YOUR glorious part

in the body is? I'm sure God has more in store

for you than being an internet Lone Ranger

fighting off bad guys and evil doctrines for

truth, justice and the American way!"

Mike?

Who said my time on the GSC was my MAIN job for

God at present? It's a sideline. Trust me-if it

was, I'd spend a LOT more time here and post a

LOT more weighty material. I'd also give my posts

here more attention than I do. (Trust me-this

is usually my 2nd-best effort, not my best.)

---------------------------------------------

Oakspear, you caught that, eh?

If it disagrees with Mike, it was "TVT".

If it disagrees with Mike, it's hearsay.

If it agrees with Mike, it's "facts".

(Even when it's opinion.)

Oakspear, I bet you didn't even lose track of

the points that I made that Mike has failed to

address from a few weeks ago, when he asked me to

stop focusing on him. (I have more of those

points that I'm saving for the appropriate time.

Also, I'd rather see him try to address the

original points first.)

Oh, Mike?

You ARE aware that "Order My Steps in Thy Word"

WAS published posthumously, right? That the

editing process was NOT overseen by VPW, right?

You ARE aware that the main editor of "OMSW" was

possibly the ONLY "OLG" to ever invoke the name

of BG Leonard, even in passing, right?

So, you ARE aware that there is a VERY STRONG

possibility that Kenyon's name coming up might

have been an editorial insertion, right?

Supposedly, VPW's style should remain fairly

static throughout the years, and major changes in

style are likely to be the results of other

things, like a complete change of the editorial

process. That book has a somewhat different

"feel" than the first four-you DID notice that,

right?

Fair's fair, Mike.

You discard anything we say that's not

line-by-line directly out of the books, claiming

we have faulty memories, or problems with tapes,

and so on.

However, you find it acceptable to make comments

about things you were TOLD.

Come, come! Either hearsay IS admissable in your

system, or it isn't. It can't be "only admissable

when Mike does it".

Amazingly, you missed something in your OWN

citation. You claim VPW offered full disclosure

in his passing comment in that book, in regards

to BG Leonard. That quote makes it clear that

he was claiming that BG Leonard was a LIGHTWEIGHT

concerning SCRIPTURE, which is the ONE issue VPW

claims was uniquely his OWN. He claimed he took

what BG Leonard taught and then ADDED Scripture to

it, making for a heavier punch. What has been

demonstrated was a direct lifting of material from

Leonard. If you took out the direct quoted

material from BG Leonard, JE Stiles, EW Bullinger,

and EW Kenyon, there would be almost no writing

in the PFAL books at all.

Please cite the book and page where VPW claims

that he "assembled" the class from work by the

4 authors, rather than authoring it himself.

Again, references to Stiles and Leonard were

nearly nonexistent. Considering how much of the

PFAL Foundational class was their work, you would

think, if he was offering full disclosure, we'd

be able to at least single out a handful of

doctrines that VPW claimed he learned from them.

Instead, we have them teaching him a little here

and there in a practical sense, and then him

going to the Bible and working the material

himself.

-------------------------------------------------

On a related subject....

Are you aware that there were whole research teams

at hq that produced some of the weightier,

"original" books? "Jesus Christ:Our Passover",

for example, was a hefty book written by the

research dept and edited by VPW. Ever see the

words "edited by" on the covers? No? Is it

because he didn't know the names of the research

team? Is it because they refused to allow their

names to be connected with their work? Is it

because he just thought the manuscripts just

materialized, and he had no idea the research team

had done it?

Or was it a matter of VPW wanting all the credit?

I'm sure you'll have a creative answer to that one

that absolves VPW of that, somehow. To the rest

of us, it sounds at least somewhat deceptive, even

dishonest. It would be like me taking credit for

writing all the intelligent rebuttals that Rafael,

Goey and Zixar wrote to your doctrines.

Somehow, it's not something we can just blow off.

-------------------------------------------------

Mike posted (7/02/03, 1:54pm)

that the rest of us subscribe to the

"one villian theory"

and described himself as follows:

"Here on your own turf comes this one guy with

a seemingly endless supply of surprise moves

that you've never had to deal with."

In English, the rest of us oversimplified

things, and then MIKE rushed in to our rescue,

armed with all sorts of clever things we never

even considered.

Just thought I'd let those of you know (if any

of you missed it) how Mike characterizes us.

----------------------------------------------

Mike,

if you want to start a new thread, that's your

business. Keep in mind that if that one contains

silly, illogical or ungodly doctrine, we'll be

all over it.

-----------------------------------------------

Oooh...we all

"blew it on Dr's final instructions".

First of all, an inconclusive case has been

presented that this WAS his final instructions.

Second of all, a number of people here have

concluded that if VPW whispered the contents of

that teaching to them, and immediately

thereafter dropped dead, they would voluntarily

choose to disregard them. They think that VPW

"blew it" on demonstrating himself worthy of

any such trust, so "blowing it" on his

instructions is about as fraught with danger as

"blowing it" on the final instructions of

Mickey Mouse. (7/2/03, 2:42pm)

You guys thought Mike would be fair and

even-handed in his index? It's the next

attempt in his tries to control the discussion. Honest and open discussion is NOT working in his favour, and appearances of intellectualism

result in REAL intellectuals dropping in and pointing out flaws in his logic.

So, distract from the current topics (I'm

patient, but I WILL repeat myself if he tries to

wholly ignore my points, and I WILL post more),

and redefine everything to your advantage.

Anyone else care to make a REAL index of the

thread? (Not just the insults-a FAIR index of

all points.)

The reason Mike won't post on ex-twi sites is

that he's worn out his welcomes there. The

reason Mike won't leave here is that he hasn't

been kicked out, and he thinks a lot of people

will line up with him here. He won't go to

non-twi sites because they'll crush his "the

Bible is messed up" doctrine like a cardboard

box, and they'll just laugh if he says the Bible

was replaced like an obsolete computer. He needs

to completely control the discussion to have any

hope of looking reasonable. He won't make his

own mesageboard because, although he could then

fully control the contents 100%, he would be

unable to get people to show up. Without anyone

visiting his site and reading his message, his

sense of self would take a nasty hit. Thing is,

if he did, him and seaspray would at least have

a harmonious discussion.

At Mike's request, I have spent some time in

the orange PFAL book.

I have found some interesting things.

Now, some of you following this thread have

thrown away your orange books. As such, when you

challenged some of Mike's claims, he replied

that you were relying on faulty memories of the

PFAL class, and you had no idea what the books

said. The BOOKS, Mike insisted, are canonical,

not the class or your memories of either.

Therefore, I will post some direct quotes from

the books. Those of you who lack access to

your orange books might want to print these out.

Those of you who HAVE your orange books are

welcome to follow along and confirm (refute?)

whether these are direct quotes from the book

or not.

-----------------------------------------------

Now, then, Mike's been rather clear with us

that PFAL REPLACED the Bible, and is now God's

Word. Now, then, if that is true-and Mike

asserts that it IS-then PFAL's internal

testimony concerning both ITSELF and

"The Word of God"-which, according to Mike, are

now synonymous-are the ONLY accurate sources of

material on PFAL. That means that when PFAL

speaks, neither Mike nor I dare contradict it.

-----------------------------------------------

Here is one place PFAL (the orange book)

discusses how to understand The Word of God...

page 147.

"There is another answer-The Word interprets

itself.

The Word interprets itself in one of three ways:

1) it interprets itself in the verse where it

is written, or

2) it interprets itself in its context, or

3) the interpretation can be found by its

previous usage in The Word.

It was a remarkable revelation to us who do

Biblical research to discover that the vast

majority of the Word of God does interpret

itself right where it is written. I would

estimate that from Genesis to Revelation 85 to

90 per cent of the Word of God interprets itself

in the verse.

If the interpretation is so obvious, why have we

not understood it? First of all, we have not

read it; and secondly, we have not remembered

what we read. We get sloppy and read

"thoroughly" instead of "throughly".

Let us look at some examples where Scripture

interprets itself in the verse.

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the

earth.

Where does this verse interpret itself? One

needs no commentary to understand this verse."

-----------------------------------------------

Ok, let's review.

Three keys to understanding The Word...

A) the verse where it's written.

85-90% of the Word of God can be understood

by the "OBVIOUS" meaning of the verses. So long

as we READ them, and remember what we read,

we can understand 85-90% of Scripture.

That means the Word of God, at most, can

contain a maximum of 15% of verses that can NOT

be understood by the "OBVIOUS" meaning.

That's straight out of this page, right?

(BTW, I retyped the entire page, and did NOT

include anything from either surrounding page.)

That's EXACTLY what we can take from this page.

So, people claiming that the PFAL IS Scripture,

and the ORANGE book is canonical DARE NOT claim

what this page says is not true-

that is, claim that less than 85% of PFAL is

understood by the "OBVIOUS" meaning of the text.

-----------------------------------------------

Let's also note that it named ONLY 3 keys for

understanding.

Let's look at the other 2 keys.

page 183-184, the Orange PFAL book.

"The second point of how Scripture interprets

itself is in its context. If Scripture does not

interpret itself in its own verse, then read the verse in its context. The context is that

which makes up the whole story, the enveloping

idea."

The example is then given of understanding

Psalm 2:8 "Ask of me and I shall give the the

heathen..." in light of Psalm 2:9

"Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron..."

Other examples follow, each of which state

principles you all, I'm certain, remember

fairly well.

Your memory of the class is often pretty

accurate-despite the claims of some.

--------------------------------------------

Let's look at the LAST key.

page 199, the orange PFAL book. (Entire page)

"Chapter Fourteen

In Its Previous Usage.

If Scripture does not interpret itself in the

verse or in the context, then the interpretation

is found in its previous usage. In the first

usage of a word, expression or idea, the

explanation is usually complete enough to carry

through in all other references in the Bible.

If God ever changed the usage of a word or

expression, He always explained it.

To see this great truth on how The Word

interprets itself in its previous usage observe

II Corinthians 12. II Corinthians 12 is the

passage on Paul's thorn in the flesh which has

been a problem to many people. I have a

collection in my library of different things

ministers and theologians have through the

years written to explain Paul's thorn. These

men have come up with fourteen different

conclusions. The Word tells us what Pauls' thorn

in the flesh was and thus we do not rely on

guesswork and cannot, therefore, have fourteen

contradictory opinions."

----------------------------------------------

The chapter then expounds on the "thorn in the

flesh". Page 201 has an important point to make

when examining previous usage.

"This one verse alone, since it is the first

usage of the expression in the Bible, says that

"pricks in your eyes" and "thorns in your sides"

are people."

Those of you following along at home may

remember VPW going into detail about how the

FIRST usage of a word will often determine its

meaning throughout the rest of Scripture.

This is where that point comes up. It may also

come up in his other books-I'll address that

when I get to it.

-----------------------------------------------

Different claims have been put forth about

PFAL.

Was PFAL supposed to be simply a class to help

understand the Bible (as Goey, for example,

said)?

Was PFAL supposed to replace the tired old

documents we've been struggling to use for

2000 years or more, and take the Bible's place

as the Word of God (as Mike said)?

No one who dares respect the contents of the

PFAL orange book would dare to contradict its

internal testimony of itself.

What does PFAL says about itself?

page 4, PFAL orange book.

"This book, Power for Abundant Living, is one

way of showing interested people the abundant

life which Jesus Christ lived and which He

came to make available to believers as it is

revealed in the Word of God.

This is a book containing Biblical keys. The

contents herein do not teach the Scriptures

from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21: rather, it

is designed to set before the reader the basic

keys in the Word of God so that Genesis to

Revelation will unfold and so that the abundant

life will become evident to those who want to

appropriate God's abundance to their lives. "

---------------------------------------------

The answer? PFAL declares ITSELF a book on KEYS,

not a teaching of Genesis to Revelation, a guide

to understanding Genesis to Revelation.

That's all I feel like posting at the moment.

A little later I have one Goey's going to be

particularly interested in.

Mike:

Yes, I know that as far as you're concerned,

you (you and Seaspray) are right and everyone

else is wrong. I don't think it's fair for you

to invoke people anonymously who've never

posted here, who could easily be made-up or

wildly misquoted. It's almost as unfair as

rewriting the words of a dead man. Yes, as

far as you're concerned, anything that displays

an error in PFAL is a non-issue. Yes, as far as

you're concerned, the frame of mind of the

researcher determines, for example, whether or

not the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are

synonymous (as the Bible sasy, using them

INTERCHANGEABLY as it does) or mean 2 different

things (as we were taught in PFAL.)

To the rest of us, these are not things that can

be "poo-poohed" away...not if we want to claim

any intellectual, Biblical or Godly integrity.

Doesn't it strike you as ironic, then, that you

can say the following?

A) Unless you can find a place in the orange

book that says (as the videotapes said) that VPW

"took all his other Christian books down to the

town gehenna, where the fires never go out, and

that he just closeted himself off with God and

the Bible, and that he almost wished he'd kept

that roomful of books so that they could be

used as a display piece, showing how many books

he read BEFORE giving them up", I refuse to

believe he said that.

B) The PFAL orange book does not cite BG Leonard

as the source of most of the material, and the

white RTHST book does not cite JE Stiles as the

source of most of the material. That does NOT

mean he failed to acknowledge them.

I know-you DON'T see that as a logical

inconsistency-the books being the final

authority in one place, and not in another-

but the rest of US do.

I know you think the plagiarism of the material

means nothing to you. Your response is that

we could have found out anytime.

WHEN?

Back when questioning him resulted in people

mysteriously vanishing? Before we had access

to BG Leonard and JE Stiles' work? We were told

the contributions of all others were minor.

Like a bunch of jerks, we accepted VPW at his

word, since we thought he had integrity, and his

word was reliable. That was the party line in

TWI no matter WHEN you were in.

BTW, Mike,

I keep running into people who've read

Bullinger's stuff, yet never heard of TWI, VPW

or PFAL. Still think he didn't reach anyone?

Frankly, whether or not the entirety of the

material of PFAL was original, or NONE of it was

means very little in my evaluation of things.

The integrity issue, however, DOES count.

I know this means NOTHING to you. It does to the

REST of us, though.

Also, your dogged insistence in ascribing new

and "secret" meanings to things is one of YOUR

major credibility issues.

Mike,

A) The reason you keep coming up is that the

issue here is your private interpretation of

PFAL-secret messages only you've found, hidden

meanings only you've seen, special revelation

only you believe. When we addressed PFAL,

you said you won't be sidetracked. Hours and

hours of discussion of the less-than-perfection

of the object of your adoration came up. You

have recently admitted that you claim to

be refused to be sidetracked, you refuse to

entertain what disproves your claims, etc, etc.

That was on this thread. Let me know if you need

the citations.

Since the PFAL materials have flopped on their

own, we look to find where your private

interpretations come from. They're not from the

plain reading of PFAL, since, as, has already

been shown on thread after thread, PFAL's own

methods, applied to PFAL, demonstrate it does

NOT hold up to PFAL's standard of Scripture.

Since, to date, ONLY MIKE seems to think that's

what it meant, this does not cause anyone else

stress.

MIKE has announced that VPW repeatedly said that

his material was the results of VPW and God and

various other people. This claim was already

addressed on many threads. VPW very prominently

proclaimed in PFAL it was just HIM and GOD.

Since he never repudiates that claim IN PFAL,

that claim remains in PFAL.

Another question on this subject.....

..Mike has claimed that VPW claims that some of

what VPW said (wrote) is of God directly, and

some is of VPW. Supposedly, now, some was also

of other people, yet also of VPW AND some of

other people AND GOD. That's a tangled mess.

If one must claim that PFAL was DIVINE, it

swiftly becomes a scrambled mess concerning

who wrote what.

B) On the charge of plagiarism,

if you've kept up on the GSC, you'd see that

quotes from MANY sources over MANY years

indicate that VPW did everything he could to

"soft-peddle" the connection to BG Leonard's

material and JE Stiles' material-that which the

supposed "meat" of PFAL seems to match precisely

and MIKE claims was not plagiarized. VPW NEVER

indicated that RTHST would NEVER have happened

without JE Stiles' book, which appears to

precisely parallel VPW's book. VPW NEVER

indicated that the PFAL class would NEVER have

happened without BG Leonard's class, which

seems to precisely parallel VPW's class,

complete with the imaginary examples of

Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jumpup and so on.

It can clearly be shown VPW had taken BG

Leonard's class before starting work on PFAL.

It can be clearly shown that VPW had read JE

Stiles' book before starting work on his own.

Despite huge sections of both appearing to be

photocopied to form VPW's work, he never said-

not once! -THIS is the class I owe so much to,

THIS is the book I owe so much to. Rather,

both names seem almost nonexistent in VPW

history.

C) I was reading my orange book.

Page 105 says the following, in a chapter making

the SAME point:

"I learned my unbelief in the schools I

attended which taught that the Bible is full

of errors, that the Word of God is full of

myths, that it has a lot of forgeries in it.

If a miniwster does not believe that the Bible

is God's Word and if he thinks that it is full

of myths and forgeries, what would be the man's

actions if he followed what he believes? He

would get out of the pulpit if he were honest

with himself.

I have very little respect for those who stand

in the pulpits or stand behind podiums and

declare, "This verse is all right, but that one

is an interpolation, and that other one is a

myth." "

Now, Mike, you've claimed the Bible is full of

"tattered remnants" and "unreliable fragements."

VPW declared in PFAL (chapter 8 entire) is NOT.

Mike, you've got a convoluted method of

substitution that invalidates that entire

chapter-that when VPW talks about the Bible,

he is referring to HIS writings, OR he's

referring to the one we all know, OR he's

referring to the originals. Now, plain

distinctions between the originals and moderns

we understand-but they're connected, not truly

different books. You wonder why we can't take

your view seriously...

D) Honesty and integrity COUNT to us. You can

claim the ends justified the means, but that's

not selling here-as you should have seen by

now.

E) I didn't say that studying was WRONG.

YOU said that, Mike. You claimed that using

the intellect to discern good and evil-thinking

about whether Mike's thesis is legit or not-

is wrong. I've been SAYING that THINKING is

important all along, by implication AND direct

statement. Don't pretend I said otherwise.

Your claim was that thinking was a 5-senses

approach and wrong. That means, by YOUR claim,

Advanced class Key 4 is wrong.

Is that part of the Advanced class that you

don't consider canonical-like the "cancer is

a devil spirit" part?

E) You said you're not trying to present

evidence.

Goey already pointed out that's inconsistent

with your posts.

Also, you keep saying that blindly accepting

your instructions will get us the results.

Outside of religious cults, that kind of claim

never works.

"I refuse to prove I have anything to offer,

but if you do things my way, you'll see it."

F) Your latest appeal is one of loyalty.

I'm supposed to obey VPW "because he taught you

so much of God's Word." So, then, if I teach

people a lot, they're supposed to do whatever

I say? I've been in the wrong business all

these years! I should have been teaching the

Bible yesterday so I could invoke blind

loyalty today!

*runs off to start his own ministry*

Mike:

A) Since you keep claiming I misrepresent your

positions all the time, one might think my

efforts to have our positions clearly spelled

out in plain English would be applauded.

I'm doing my best to get a clear, unambiguous

summary of your position, or positions. On some

subjects, you keep moving your position, so

it is very difficult to get a single, clear

view. So, when possible, I'm trying to get one.

When possible, I also state my positions as

plainly as possible.

----------------------------------------------

B) If thinking (having my senses exercised to

discern good and evil) is a 5-senses approach

to spiritual problems, then so is READING

(taking in information by sight and thinking

about it), no matter the subject matter. Either

both are eeee-villl, or both are acceptable.

(Especially since one is mentioned in the

accepted canon of the Bible.)

--------------------------------------------

C) I still haven't seen you present any

"evidence" that vpw's writings were of

surpassing quality, let alone of divine origin.

Since you seem to be saying you've been

providing data along those lines, please label

it when you're doing so, so we know when you

claim to be providing evidence vpw's work wasn't

one man's work supplementing an agglomeration

of the work of a handful of others.

----------------------------------------------

D) I'm still waiting on a clarification on

Leonard and Stiles. Are you going to address it

when you get a chance?

Mike:

A) Based on the previous posts, and most

prominently the post 6/19, 10:54am, then, I'd

render your clarification of my statement,

also quoted in that post, as follows:

Based on that post and previous posts, you were

saying that, as of 1982, the key revelation,

our True Bible, the Written Word of God, was now

VPW's PFAL class collaterals. This was not an

official position of TWI, but it WAS the

position of God Almighty.

Ok, would you say THAT'S exactly what you

meant?

-----------------------------------------------

B) I think you glossed over my comments about

the studies involving the collateral readings,

the Advanced Class exam, and-oh! I didn't even

mention the Home Studies! I finished those in

record time, as well. THOSE were all based on

the written material, and in each of those I

rated notably high.

(BTW, Mike, back then, I made a correction on

a question in one of the Home Studies, since

it seemed to incorrectly reflect the written

orange book. I even cited the page in my

correction. Have YOU found it?)

Again, many of us have knowledge of vpw's books

at least the equal of yours, yet, somehow, this

has not required us to hold your position.

---------------------------------------

C) You claimed VPW was an intellectual genius,

and at the level of a professional athlete.

Your claim has never been backed up by a single

IQ test, nor an objective evaluation of him by

a talent scout.

Have you read all the stories of him playing

basketball for hours with all the residents at

headquarters throughout the years, into the

early 80's? Amateur athletes can play into

their early SEVENTIES, even. For fun, former

professional, or professional-level athletes

will continue to play the sports they excel at

as a hobby. It's great fun for them and good

exercise. No? Haven't read those accounts?

Do you know why?

IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

If it did, EVERYONE who was there would have

either SEEN a game or PLAYED in a game.

You can't tell me VPW would have been playing

basketball or soccer or something and NOBODY

would have wanted to watch. When he went

hunting, they wanted to go along. When he drove

around the ground slowly on motorcycle, they

wanted to join or watch. When he went to sit

and do NOTHING, they wanted to join him.

According to VPW, that's how the original

"nightowls" got started. If VPW was HALF the

athlete you claim he was, EVERYONE would have

known. You've made a claim that he was a genius

without objective evidence, and a claim that he

was physically-exceptional and an athlete

capable of playing professionally without

objective evidence. You claimed his was

exceptional both physically, and mentally,

with little more than a handful of overheard

statements here and there.

You DON'T think of that as idolatry.

That's not how I see it, and it's not how an

unbiased observer would see it. There's no

convincing you on this, though.

---------------------------------------------

D) You said

"Recognizing that God appointed Dr as His

spokesman is no more idolatrous than recognizing

that God also appointed Paul 2000 years ago to

a similar status? Why is this hard for you to

see?"

Mike......

IF such a thing were true, and IF evidence could

be brought to support such a claim, and IF the

logical conclusion, based on the evidence, was

that it was true that God appointed vpw as His

spokesman in 1942 or at any other time,

THEN you would be facing a LOT less opposition

to your idolatrous comments, and would find

people who would agree with you who actually

KNOW something about PFAL and/or the Bible.

Your main strength seems to be in saying

"Other people's conclusions don't matter-I'm

right!" "My POV is the correct one despite the

evidence brought against it!" "I don't HAVE to

answer the evidence disproving my claims!"

"If you accepted my POV without evidence and

simply did everything I say, you'd soon agree

with me!"

For some reason, it surprises you that the more

literate GS'ers and people who memorized the

collaterals aren't buying what you're selling.

----------------------------------------------

E) I HAVE learned that trying to illustrate

using analogies doesn't connect with you. So,

I will try to remember not to use them.

---------------------------------------------

F) When I asked

"Are you saying that BG Leonard's work and JE

Stile's work are "counterfeits" and "clones" of

VPW's materials, just as ex-TWI splinter

groups' classes are clones of VPW's materials?"

You responded

"No, they are counterfeits of what God wanted

written in PFAL and distributed around the world

and mastered What they wrote or taught long ago

may have been totally accurate at times, but

revelation can change as circumstances change.

I also see those wonderful men as sometimes

getting a point right and sometimes (bless their

hearts) not getting it right, but close, and

therefore a regrettable counterfeit, ON THAT

ONE POINT."

(Remembering not to use an analogy)

I'm trying to understand EXACTLY what your

position is regarding their work.

A "counterfeit", remember, is not an "error".

An "error" is a mistake-an attempt to do

something correctly that failed in that aspect,

which is identified as the error.

A "counterfeit" is something which is based on

an original which is being counterfeited, and

attempting to pass itself off as that original

upon which it is based.

So, are you saying BG Leonard and JE Stiles

intentionally (it is IMPOSSIBLE to ACCIDENTALLY

forge something) produced work that was the

COUNTERFEIT of something else?

If that's what you're saying, what original were

they working from, which they intended to pass

off their work as?

Or, on the other hand, are you saying their

work was all ERRORS, and when you said the word

"counterfeit", you merely misspoke?

There is a big difference between an ERROR and

a COUNTERFEIT. Which did you mean?

-----------------------------------------------

G) By the way, Mike, don't think your claims

that there are no authoritative rules for the

English language was missed. I just see no

point in trying to educate you on proper

English form and grammar, since attempts to do

so by people FAR more knowledgeable on the

subject than either of us were unable to show

you the truth of the matter.

Mike:

A) on 6/19/03, 2:22am (unless otherwise noted,

all quotes date from this post)

you wrote:

"In 1982 Dr's announcements of the big changeover

dramatically increased (so far few posted),

culminating in a revelation that it was time to

switch over from the abstract "only rule" to the

concrete, freshly written "only rule"."

Based on that post and previous posts, you were

saying that, as of 1982, the key revelation,

our True Bible, the Written Word of God, was now

(officially or inofficially) VPW's PFAL class

and its collaterals.

Just wanted to make sure that didn't get lost in

the shuffle. That IS what you said and meant.

(Albeit posted in a convoluted way.)

I'm not going to address that at present.

------------------------------------------

B) You also posted:

"I'll bet that the degree of memorization you

did of PFAL less than the degree of your KJV

retemorization. I'll bet your degree of

mastering the points of PFAL was less than how

you looked for points in KJV."

You'd LOSE BOTH BETS.

Mike, I don't give you a lot of my time and

attention. My INCIDENTAL attention is enough

to quote you extensively.

Back then, I memorized PFAL AND the KJV with

EQUAL fervor. Due to the ability to sit in

class after class of PFAL, session after

session, I was able to quote extensively from

the taped version. I sat in once on a taped

version missing a segment from Session 6. I

basically recited the missing section, complete

with the verse references. Before taking the

Advanced class, you're supposed to take an exam

and demonstrate your understanding of the

materials of the Foundational and Intermediate

classes. I studied MORE before taking it. As it

turns out, the material I studied was NOT on

the exam. I STILL blazed through the questions

in record time. Section one was on the PFAL

foundational class itself. Allotted time for

this section? Ninety minutes. Time WordWolf

took to complete this section, and check his

answers TWICE? Twenty-seven minutes. The last 6

of them were basically fooling around.

Ever sat in a twig where trivia questions were

thrown from the home studies or the PFAL

materials? I've been asked-repeatedly-to stop

answering for awhile and give the others a

chance. Ever attend a PFAL study group? By

mutual consent of me and the study group leader,

it was agreed that I did not NEED the study

group-I had the material down cold. My memory

is as sharp as it ever was, and if I was handed

a KJV, concordance, and an Advanced class exam

at this moment, I'd bet I'd get the exact same

score I did last time. So, when it comes to

ability to spit back the answers swallowed

whole from PFAL, I'd compare well with anyone

I was stacked against-down to the way vpw

pronounced which words. If I am not CURRENTLY

at the level of "recite it backwards and

forwards", I am not far shy of it.

Your opinion that this level of memorization &

understanding is synonymous with YOUR POV

produces a blind spot. That is, NOBODY can know

the material that well, unless they agree PFAL's

God current Bible. If they did memorize it,

you think, and they STILL didn't hold your POV,

they are an "unjust steward" and an "unfit

student" and all sorts of derogatory things.

---------------------------------------------

C) You also wrote

"I don't think he taught we should think of him

as infallible, so you may have been led wrong.

I know this happened, and in spite of all my

other failures in life, I didn't get sucked into

hero worship of VPW ever."

You also suggested I might have idolized VPW.

I didn't. At the time, I might have been said

to idolize his writings-which is right where you

are NOW, Mike.

However, I'd like to point out a few things

about the quote.

YOU don't think VPW put forth himself as

infallible. That's a minority opinion, Mike.

We've discussed this at the GSC.

He called HIMSELF "THE TEACHER", AND ACTIVELY

ENCOURAGED OTHERS TO DO SO. He defined the

office of an apostle specifically in a way that

all but names him the only living one. Even

now, you're claiming he spoke for God (prophet),

and claiming HE said the same. That's 3 out of

5 gift ministries, all of them claiming an

ELITE position above others who might possibly

claim "teacher" "apostle" or "prophet".

This has already been hashed out on other

threads.

Mike?

You're claiming you've never idoliZed VPW.

Have you READ your posts here?

Besides all your claims of his special status,

you've also posted that he was an intellectual

genius (posted it, not simply implied it), and

stated that you firmly believe he was of

excellent athletic ability, and was at least

of pro-college level in college. A veritable

paragon, one might say, since you've claimed

both his mind and body were exceptional.

Do you vaguely recall the discussion on another

thread about this? It came up in TWO threads,

actually. You DEFENDED this position, saying

you didn't think this was an unreasonable

assumption, and concluded by saying you didn't

think this made you a fanatic (I forget the

exact term-you may not have said 'fanatic'.)

I also don't hate VPW. I didn't have enough of

an emotional attachment to him to hate him.

You'll have to talk to some of the other posters

(rape survivors and others) to find that. They

have much more to say on the subject than I do.

I do NOT have a fanaticism about VPW either

way.

I DO have a fanaticism about TRUTH, and THAT'S

why we keep butting heads. You claim certain

events never happened, you claim other events

DID happen. For good or ill, I always seek the

truth, no matter HOW ugly or unpleasant it is.

---------------------------------------------

D) You asked why I didn't include comments about

the "David" thing under my comments about the

"ERRORS" thread. It was unnecessary. The

discussion of the removal of it as an

indisputable error took up over a page. ANYONE

who reads that thread can EASILY see the issue

was resolved-at least for the rules of that

thread.

What that showed was that the other posters on

that thread were intellectually honest enough to

acknowledge that THEY are not infallible, and

they are diligent enough to find places THEY are

in error, and are capable of improvement.

The resolution of that one item was NOT, by any

stretch of the imagination, a demonstration of

YOUR position, nor your position's ability to

withstand scrutiny. Out of a tall stack of

errors, ONE was resolved. Statistically, it

should have been expected that at least ONE

would be found. As you interpret that, it

means that the ENTIRE list is also invalid.

That's an unwarranted assumption. It's like

watching someone reach into a refrigerator,

take out a can of soda, and generalizing that

the entire contents of the refrigerator was

cans of soda.

The others can clearly read the thread for

themselves. Your posts can be largely

characterized by evasions and obfuscations-but

let's let THEM read it for themselves and decide

that, shall we?

If the thread HAD been "spotty at best", you

would have been able to make a MUCH better

showing, mowing down unwarranted assumptions

and introducing evidence on each item. It WOULD

have been very impressive, and earned you much

respect.

-----------------------------------------------

E) You called the Bible "unreliable fragments"

and "tattered remants." You also said that it

can be used by some people. You STILL don't

see the logical contradiction between the two

statements.

Here's one last try to illustrate it.

We go to a junkyard.

We look over a wrecked car.

There's nothing left of it but fragments, and

those are not intact. The frame is partially

crushed, the interior is gutted, the engine's

completely missing.

A salesman comes over and tries to convince

you that, in its current condition, it can be

of some use to you to travel, even if it's only

a LITTLE use. Not MUCH use, just a little.

---------------------------------------------

F) In answering my question about the contents

of BG Leonard and JE Stiles' work, you gave

the following answer:

"The counterfeit is always CLOSE to the

genuine. The 1942 promise was to Dr and Dr

only. It was completed. I would NOT try to

convince anyone but a PFAL grad of this.

I would not be confused by the correct

knowledge a BG Leonard student has any more

than by the correct knowledge a PFAL splinter

group puts into their clone classes."

Although you didn't say what you'd tell a student of BG Leonard or JE Stiles, that WAS an

attempt at an answer. I'm not 100% sure I got

one point, though, so I want to make sure I'm

not mischaracterizing your position.

Are you saying that BG Leonard's work and JE

Stiles' work are "counterfeits" and "clones"

of VPW's materials, just as ex-TWI splinter

groups' classes are clones of VPW's materials?

It appears that's what you're saying, and I want

to be certain that's what you MEANT to say.

---------------------------------------------

BTW, don't feel required to make a summary or a

timeline. I'd like to see it, but I may be the

only one, and it's hardly a critical issue.

----------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------

Steve,

I didn't mean to imply that your followup

question, the more IMPORTANT question, was

addressed at all. I don't expect it to be

addressed any more than you do.

You had initially posed a more general question,

to which Mike had posted a more general answer.

In all fairness, THAT question was answered.

Mike will NEVER believe it of me, but I require

intellectual honesty of myself no matter WHO

disbelieves it.